Proceedings issued, NTK invalid, Gladstones/Millennium refusing to respond

Loadsofchildren123

They were members of the BPA at the time of the NtD, but by the time of the NtK they had switched to IPC.
Which CoP do you think applies in that scenario?


BPA CoP obviously applies to the signage, but what about the amount claimed in the NtK?

Coupon-mad

The BPA CoP applies to the whole thing; it is down to the date of parking event.

Loadsofchildren123

Hoping someone who knows the answer to this will see it. I'm doing the Skeleton. I remember reading on someone's thread case law which said that an operator is not entitled to add general "admin" charges to the claim, they had found a case which said this.
Does this ring a bell with anyone? I didn't make a note of it at the time and would like to refer to the case if I can.


Many thanks!

Coupon-mad

Well the POFA says that the sum that can be pursued from a keeper is the sum on the NTK and also mentions elsewhere that this is 'not to allow double recovery'

Loadsofchildren123

someone had posted on a thread - it was either a draft Skeleton or a draft Defence - and they'd found some case law or some regulation that said that where the Claimant is adding on admin costs, they are prohibited from adding them on because they are the ordinary cost of running a business and not recoverable as costs in a claim. It's not the lynchpin of the argument in the case I'm dealing with, by any means, but I would shove it in if I could remember where I read it!!!

beamerguy

Loadsofchildren123 wrote: »

someone had posted on a thread - it was either a draft Skeleton or a draft Defence - and they'd found some case law or some regulation that said that where the Claimant is adding on admin costs, they are prohibited from adding them on because they are the ordinary cost of running a business and not recoverable as costs in a claim. It's not the lynchpin of the argument in the case I'm dealing with, by any means, but I would shove it in if I could remember where I read it!!!

I am sure this was on a pranksters blog where the judge says they could not claim the costs of running their business as it is a normal business expense.
If I recall, the PPC was talking about the cost of uniforms etc

This link might help you
http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2015/10/anpr-court-update.html

Coupon-mad

Yes but that was a GPEOL argument (pre-Beavis) and goes nowhere fast, now.

Loadsofchildren123

I unearthed something useful last night in relation to the BPA CoP. I was reading the code, and doing a schedule of all the PPC's breaches which I thought would be useful because in Beavis it was held that compliance with the CoP is paramount (paras 96/111 of judgment).


It occurred to me having done my schedule that I may be looking at an old version of the CoP, so I went onto the BPA website to check. Turned out I was right, I then looked at the up to date CoP and noticed several changes.


My time was not wasted, because it dawned on me that I should be relying on both versions of the CoP – the old version in place on the date the PPC-landowner contract was signed (because it contains obligations about what the contract should say and the rights it should specifically grant about the PPC’s ability/authority to issue proceedings, if that was the intention) and the version in place on the date of the ticket (because it contains obligations about the signage).


In relation to the landowner contract, both versions of the CoP say that the PPC must have specific authority before it can take court action against a driver/keeper, but the old version says this must be in the landowner contract whereas the second version doesn’t. I think this is really useful in allowing me to argue that the PPC has no authority to bring the proceedings.

New CoP says:
7.1 If you do not own the land on which you are carrying out parking management, you must have the written authorisation of the landowner (or their appointed agent). The written confirmation must be given before you can start operating on the land in question and give you the authority to carry out all the aspects of car park management for the site that you are responsible for. In particular, it must say that the landowner (or their appointed agent) requires you to keep to the Code of Practice and that you have the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges.


7.2 If the operator wishes to take legal action on any outstanding parking charges, they must ensure that they have the written authority of the landowner (or their appointed agent) prior to legal action being taken.

The previous version of 7.1 includes this wording towards the end:
….it must say that the landowner requires you to keep to the Code of Practice and that either you have the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges, through the courts if necessary or that you have the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges and, with their permission, through the courts if necessary.


And the previous 7.2 is still there, unchanged.


So I’m going to argue that either way the PPC has to have specific authority to bring proceedings which it has not shown it has - the old 7.1 and 7.2 applied at the time of the contract yet the contract is silent so they cannot claim they have authority under it; and as at the date of the parking, the new 7.1 and the same para 7.2 apply yet the PPC has not shown that it has any such authority.

Loadsofchildren123

I've at last finished my Skeleton. I've done a list of breaches of POFA and the BPA CoP as separate schedules, as Lamilad did.
The Skeleton is long because it is very full.
I will work out how to get these onto a dropbox account and post a link tomorrow, i'd really appreciate feedback.

Loadsofchildren123

No idea if this will work.
First document is Skeleton, followed by the two documents summarising POFA and CoP breaches.


If these don't work, can someone help me with how else I can post them?

Would really appreciate any feedback/comments.




https://www.dropbox.com/s/ybqnmy5v37ci3p1/SKELETON%20anonymised.docx?dl=0


https://www.dropbox.com/s/k5djmx5o1et4xc3/POFA%20REBUTTAL.docx?dl=0


https://www.dropbox.com/s/244fnwb9pzr7xoa/BREACHES%20OF%20THE%20BPA%20CODE%20OF%20PRACTICE.docx?dl=0